On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 9:32 AM Billy Tetrud wrote:
> > Bitcoin doesn't have a strong single concept of a 'parent'
>
> I'm using the term "parent" loosely in context here to mean a relationship
> where an input has constraints applied to an output (or outputs).
>
Yes and I'm using it more specif
> the **only** material distinction (and the one that we are discussing)
is activation with or without majority hash power support
I agree that characterization specifically is not moot. But its also
orthogonal to the topic of the CTV opcode itself.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:03 PM wrote:
> > B
> Bitcoin doesn't have a strong single concept of a 'parent'
I'm using the term "parent" loosely in context here to mean a relationship
where an input has constraints applied to an output (or outputs).
> verify the secure hash chain from its parent to itself so that it knows
what the parent loo
The name of the fund should ideally unambiguously clarify its scope, i.e.,
Bitcoin & development. So maybe “Bitcoin Developers Community LDF”. Or
perhaps “Bitcoin Technical Community LDF” which nicely abbreviates to
BTCLDF.
Zac
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 19:49, jack via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lis
Dear Sir,
Regarding your message
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-December/019636.html
Specifically the part
*"Right now, lightning anchor outputs use a 330 sats amount. Each
commitment*
*transaction has two such outputs, and only one of them is spent"*
I was wondering *
